frankie's Journal: I see in the near future...

... "a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." - Abraham Lincoln, 1864 November 21

Honest Abe violated the Constitution through unlawful detention and censorship, but I must admit that many of the tall man's essays still read well today.

Capitalism is a great idea that benefits most people. Corporatism is not and does not.

Welcome back!

[Mike Hawk]

I missed you since you have been hanging out with all the other Republicans over at Dailykos.

Yeah, corporations are scary huh? Boogie boogie boogie.

howdy

[nizo]

This doesn't really have anything to do with this journal entry, but after reading some of your earlier journals I noticed your "views" page (I really liked your ideas on dealing with Gerrymandering btw, except that we might end up with some weird shaped counties, unless we made sure that county boundries couldn't easily be changed). Anyway, as far as tax reform goes, what are your views on something like this [fairtax.org]? (IE some kind of national sales tax).

Re:howdy

[frankie]

Glad you enjoyed my ramblings.

Yeah, a state legislature could try to contort their county borders for gerrymandering. I don't think they'd succeed. 90+% of the counties would oppose it.

And if the proposal affects any school districts ... oh man, I've gone to county meetings. Getting hundreds of angry mothers on your back in exchange for a few brownie points with Tom Delay? Not even close to worth it.

As for national sales tax, dunno. Even a VAT would get bogged with lobbyist-inspired rules and exemptions.

Re:howdy

[nizo]

Well I always figured a national sales tax would be good as long as you tax necessities (food, medicine, etc) at a different rate than luxuries (yachts, hummers, etc). In fact some items might not even be taxed at all. Also, if you save money, you don't get taxed on it. One downside I do see is people might not donate to non-profits as much without the tax break (which is sad), but I dunno.

Re:howdy

[frankie]

I just wrote an email to FairTax.org:

It seems like a good idea, but the devil is in the details.

Your FAQ sounds like a used car salesman. You dodge a lot of valid questions with trite answers about "hidden" taxes. Just be honest and say "yes, this particular thing might cost 30% more than it did before, but overall you'll still be better off."

For example, home purchasing. I am forced to guess that existing homes do not count as "used goods", because if they did you would trumpet it loudly. Therefore, hav

Capitalism fails

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Because without regulation, it will ALWAYS lead to corporatism. Same reason the Marxism failed- without controls *requiring* large scale input into the committees, power got concentrated into the hands of the few.

There's got to be a better way- one that protects local economics from global infringement. I like some of the distributionist ideas to do that (from excessive tax on shipping encouraging local manufacturing to strict rationing of fuel for shipping) but it's patently unconstitutional (not suppos

Re:Capitalism fails

[frankie]

I disagree. Unrestrained corporate personhood is not a necessary element of capitalism. There are several options for corporate law (limited charters, the public good, executive liability, et al) that could keep the system clean.

Of course, some of those would also inflict trillions of dollars in paper losses on the world economy, and if that happens a lot of ordinary people suffer.

It's an interesting applied math problem.

Re:Capitalism fails

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I disagree. Unrestrained corporate personhood is not a necessary element of capitalism. There are several options for corporate law (limited charters, the public good, executive liability, et al) that could keep the system clean.

Ok, maybe not a necessary element- but it's a predictable outcome of the evolution of business. Here's why: Once you have charters, Executive Liability Corporations, and the public good, unrestrained corporate personhood just becomes a function of lobbying vs how honest the poli

via gibson's blog

[Elwood P Dowd]

"...the larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, the first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide...the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre... The presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more close